This document provides an overview of Section 115 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for revision of cases in the High Court. The key points are: 1. Section 115 allows the High Court to revise cases from subordinate courts where no appeal is permitted, if the subordinate court exercised improper jurisdiction, failed to exercise proper jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. 2. Revision is meant for correcting errors of jurisdiction or procedure, not reexamining facts. It is pursued when no appeal is available and there is a clear error in the lower court's order. 3. The grounds for revision under Section 115 are if the lower court exercised powers not granted by law, failed to exercise proper

1. University of Petroleum & Energy Studies
SCHOOL OF LAW
B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) Criminal laws Batch 1
Semester 6
Session -: 2017-22
Academic YEAR: 2019-20 SESSIONS: Jan – May
Project
For
Code of Civil Procedure
Topic- SECTION 115 CPC- REVISION
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:
Submitted by – Neeti Goyal
Name Sap id Roll no
Ashan Thind 500062162 R154217023

2. Chapter 1- INREODUCTION.
Section 115 C.P.C. provides for revision to High Court, in respect of any order
by any court subordinate to it. The only grounds on which a revision can be laid
are-(a) that the trial court exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b)
that the trial court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, or (c) that
the trial court acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercising the
jurisdiction [Sec. 115 C.P.C.] The High Court will not entertain Revision
petition unless one or the other of these conditions exist.
Usually, revision petition is laid when no appeal lies from the impugned order.
However, the rule is that High Court should usually be convinced of a patent
error or illegality in the impugned order for it to interfere with the order. As a
rule, High Court does not go-into the question of fact in revision petition, and
confines itself to questions of law only. Consequently, only when no appeal is
provided from the disputed order, the revisional powers of High Court are
invoked.
High Court is empowered under Amendment Act 46 of 1999 to vary or modify
an order deciding in issue only when the said order if given in favour of the
party applying for revision has the effect of finally disposing of the suit or other
proceedings. Under the unamended Code the said order can be revised even
when the order if allowed to stand occasions of failure of justice or causes
irreparable injury to the revision petitioner. Sub-section (3) is inserted by
Amendment Act 46 of 1999 clarifying that a revision does not operate as a stay
of proceedings in the Court below, unless specific orders of stay are issued by
High Court.

3. CHAPTER 2 Section 115
The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by
any court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto,
and if such subordinate court appears
(a) To have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) To have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) To have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegality or with material
irregularity.
The High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:
[Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any
order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other
proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party
applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other
proceeding.]
(2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or
order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any court
subordinate thereto.
(3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the
Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court1
Explanation.
In this section, the expression “any case which has been decided” includes any
order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other
proceeding.
1https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=civil%20procedure%20code%20115

4. Jurisdiction:
The word ‘jurisdiction’ is a verbal coat of many colours. Jurisdiction originally
seems to have had the meaning which Lord Reid ascribed to it in Anisminic
Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission [(1969) 2 A.C. 147]2, namely, the
entitlement “to enter upon the enquiry in question”. It has, as a result of a catena
of Indian decisions, assumed a restricted meaning. Section 115 confers power of
revision on the High Court in a case not subject to appeal thereto.
According to the Law Commission, errors of jurisdiction and errors apparent on
the face of the record could be corrected under Art. 227 of the Constitution. But
the third clause under S. 115 could not be covered by Art. 227, viz., when the
court acts or exercises jurisdiction on the subordinate court’s acting in the
exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
The remedy under Art. 2273 is also costly for the poor litigants, and the remedy
provided in S. 115, is, on the other hand, cheap and easy. The Committee,
however, felt that, in addition to the restrictions contained in S. 115, an overall
restriction on the scope of the applications for revision against interlocutory
orders should be imposed.
Having regard to the recommendations made by the Law Commission in its
Fourteenth and Twenty-seventh Reports, the Committee recommended that S.
115 of the Code should be retained subject to the modification that no revision
application shall lie against an interlocutory order unless either of the following
conditions is satisfied, namely:
2https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=section%20115%20of%20cpc+doctypes:judg
ments
3constitution of india mp jain.

5. (i) That if the orders were made in favour of the applicant, it would finally
dispose of the suit or other proceeding; or
(ii) That the order, if allowed to stand, is likely to occasion a failure of justice or
cause an irreparable injury.
The Committee felt that the expression ‘case decided’ should be defined so that
the doubt as to whether S. 115 applies to an interlocutory order may be set at
rest. Accordingly the Committee have added a proviso and an Explanation to S.
115. The proviso added to S. 115 of the principal Act renumbered as sub-s. (1)
Thereof reads:
Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any
order made, or any order deciding as issue, in the course of a suit or other
proceeding, except where-
(a) The order, if it has been made in favour of the party applying for revision,
would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or
(b) The order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause
irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. [Under the Code of
Civil Procedure (U.P. Amendment) Act No. 31 of 1978, S. 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, stands repealed and substituted as under:4“The High
Court in cases arising out of an original suit or other proceedings of the value of
rupees twenty thousand and above, including such suits or other proceedings
instituted before August 1, 1978, and the District Court in any other case,
including a case arising out of an original suit or other proceedings instituted
before such date, may call for the record of any case which has been decided by
any court subordinate to such High Court, or District Court, as the case may be,
and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate court appears.
4https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=section%20115%20of%20cpc+doctypes:judg
ments

6. (a) To have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) To have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) To have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material
irregularity, the High Court or the District Court, as the case may be, may make
such order in the case as it thinks fit:
Provided that in respect of cases arising out of original suits or other
proceedings of any valuation, decided by the District Court, the High Court
alone shall be competent to make an order under this section:Provided further
that the High Court or the District Court shall not, under this section, vary or
reverse any order deciding an issue, made in the course of a suit or other
proceeding, except where (i) the order, if so varied or reversed, would finally
dispose of the suit or other proceeding; or (ii) the order, if allowed to stand,
would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party
against whom it was made.
Scope:
In the exercise of revisional powers it is not the duty of the High Court to enter
into the merits of the evidence; it has only to see whether the requirements of
the law have been duly and properly obeyed by the court whose order is the
subject of the revision and whether the irregularity as to failure or exercise of
jurisdiction is such as to justify interference with the order. The remedy by way
of revision cannot be denied in a case where the order is not appealable and in
which one or the other condition stated in S. 115 is satisfied.

7. CHAPTER-3 GROUNDS OF REVISION.
Grounds of Revision.-
As to give this term a general meaning, it means to look again, to revise and to
go thoroughly. It means re-examination of cases which involve the legal
assumptions, non-exercise or irregular exercise of jurisdiction.
 The case must be the one in which no appeal lies.
 The ground of revision can only be jurisdictional.
 The case must be decided by subordinate court.
 There must be some jurisdictional errors.
Revisional is not a matter of substantive right, it is merely a privilege given to a
party.
The jurisdictional errors involve:
1. Exercising a jurisdiction not vested in it,
2. Failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it
3. Acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
Thus, the provisions of appeal, review, revision and reference are the provisions
established for the sake of principle of justice, that no decision should go
inaccurate or incorrect.

8. CHAPTER- 4 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REVISION AND APPEAL.
Appeal: There is no definition of the word “appeal” in any statute. It can be
defined as the judicial examination by a higher Court of a decision of an inferior
Court. It is a legal proceeding by which a case is brought before a higher court
for review of the decision of a lower court. Appeal is a process of re-
examination by a higher court of the judgment, or the order or the decision
made by a lower court in a suit or in a case. Appeal is the right of entering a
superior court and invoking its aid and interposition to redress the error of the
court below. It is a proceeding taken before a superior court for reversing or
modifying the decision of an inferior court on ground of error.
Revision: Revision is the act of examining again in order to remove any defect
or grant relief against irregular or improper exercise or non-exercise of
jurisdiction by a lower court. Revision is like re-working and re-writing.
Revision means the action of revising, especially critical or careful examination
or perusal with a view to correcting or improving.
In Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), the provisions relating to appeal are
contained in Sections 372 to 394, while provisions relating to revision are
contained in Sections 397 to 405.
In Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the provisions relating to appeal are contained
in Sections 96 to 112, while provisions relating to revision are contained in
Section 115.
Generally speaking, there are following major differences between the legal
terms “appeal” and “revision” (though the actual difference between these terms
will depend upon the provisions of the law in which they are contained, such as
in Criminal Procedure Code or in Civil Procedure Code or in the other relevant
laws):

9.  Appeal is generally a legal right of a party, but revision depends on the
discretion of the Court, due to which it cannot be claimed as a matter of
right. In particular, in criminal cases, at least one appeal is a substantive
right conferred on accused by the statute (and it is also considered a part
of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution),
while the revision power is discretionary and is not a matter of right.
 In case of appeal, the appellant is heard by the court. But, it is not
necessary in the case of a revision and the person filing the revision may
not be formally heard.
 Under the Civil Procedure Code, an appeal lies to a superior court (which
may not necessary be a High Court), while a revision application lies only
to the High Court (under Section 115 of the Code).
 Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the appeal lies to a superior court
(which may be any superior court as laid down in the relevant
provisions), but the revision lies only to the High Court or the Sessions
Court (Section 399 of Cr.P.C.).
 Appeal is required to be filed by a party to the proceedings, but revision
can also be exercised suo motu by the higher court having the power of
revision.
 Generally, revision is exercised against those orders which are not
appealable.
 Generally, appeal involves rehearing on question of law as well as on
facts of the case, whereas revision generally involves hearing only the
question of law and this is not considered a rehearing.
 An appeal is considered to be a continuation of the original proceeding
whereas revision is not the continuation of the original proceeding.

10. CHAPTER6- CONCLUSION
The Code of Civil Procedure does not specifically speak of consolidation of
suits but the same can be under the inherent powers of the Court flowing from
Section 151 of the C.P.C. Unless specifically prohibited, the Civil Court has
inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice
or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
Where there was closure of entire evidence of plaintiffs side by the Rent
Controller while rejecting her son’s affidavit for recording evidence on her
behalf. Held, that serious error had been committed by the Rent Controller by
closing entire evidence. As such, recall of said order on ground of mistake or
error by the Rent Controller by exercising inherent powers could not be viewed
as an act of review.